R
RH Breener
Humm... I never gave it much thought. I figured it went by email to theChar Jackson said:
NSP, now I see that's not necessary.
NSP, now I see that's not necessary.
R
RH Breener
Yes, I didn't give much thought to how the messages to be sent got to theKen Blake said:
NSPs. I figured by email. I was wrong.
Got it.
R
RH Breener
No. It's checked and it's also checked to remove from server after 5 days.Bruce Hagen said:
But as I found out, there are plenty of old messages on the gmail server.
I can't find that setting in WLM. Where did MS hide it? It's not under
options either or under properties for the accounts. The only thing under
Options are Safety-Options.
R
RH Breener
What attitude do you expect me to have under these circumstances? Should IChar Jackson said:
be happy and excited after all the aggravation trying to get around these
irritating time wasting unwanted safety features? None of you have told me
yet how to disable them. Can they even be disabled so the computer can be
used without constant permission popups?
I shouldn't be disappointed to find that even though my favorite email
program is on W-7, MS wont allow it's use?
Tell me, what should my attitude be since I didn't have this with any of the
other PCs I've owned?
X
XS11E
What he said!RH Breener said:
It was generally believed nobody could write software WORSE than OE or
WM (which was a VERY tiny improvement on OE) but WLM is a giant step
backwards.
Fortunately there are several good free email clients several good
newsreaders, none of which come from Microsoft or Mozilla IMHO.
V
VanguardLH
Did Windows Mail have the Live integration features of Windows LiveRH said:
Mail? WLM will integrate with Skydrive to let you store files up there,
like putting your attachments up there and linking to them in your
e-mail. That way, you don't assault your recipients with huge-sized
e-mails that consume their bandwidth and disk space and they can decide
whether or not to go get your attachment. WM won't do that. Microsoft
has been promoting their Live services and apps for quite a long time.
Now that users are getting used to it, Microsoft is abandoning the
"Windows" moniker that was supposed to link their services to their
Windows operating system.
I'm pretty sure that if you made a comprehensive list of features in WM
and those in WLM that there are features in one that aren't in the
other. I'm also pretty sure your list showing a comparison of features
of differences between the two e-mail client would show WLM as having
more features than WM.
A lot of the resistance that I see toward WLM (other than regarding v15
and its screwup regarding lack of proper quoting in replies) is due to
Microsoft's desire to push everyone to their ribbon bar scheme. Lots of
users don't like that new GUI. They also don't like it in the
components of Office 2010. That's a usability issue, not a features
issue.
It sounds like your complaint about WLM regards your lack of familiarity
with it, not its features. That you couldn't locate the rules didn't
obviate they are there. That it didn't work with one of your Gmail
account points to a bad configuration of that account in the e-mail
client (a whole separate issue than whether WLM is better or worse than
WM). WLM *does* work with Gmail accounts. Selecting messages in WLM is
the same as you select files in Windows Explorer, so it is your
unfamiliarity with selecting multiple files using Shift+click or
Ctrl+click or Ctrl+A in Windows Explorer that also gets exhibited in
WLM. That you cannot figure out how to do a search on messages that
meet some criteria, like a date range, doesn't obviate that the feature
is there for you to search on matching messages and then delete them all
using Ctrl+A in the search dialog.
It does have rules. It does clauses for rules to prevent downloading
messages over a specified maximum size. It does work with Gmail. It
does let you select multiple messages or get a list via a search to then
perform some action on them, like delete them. So far, your complaints
with WLM are about your inexperience with it. No, I don't use WLM (I
have Outlook 2003 as my local e-mail client) but I've trialed the
product and can do research on it (reading or testing in virtual
machine) to find the features you claim are missing.
Inexperience doesn't qualify a product as worse. It merely exposes a
preference to use what you already learned or an unwillingness to
[expend the time to] learn something different.
How many is "so many websites" devoted (not really) to instructing how
to get WM working in Windows 7? How many of those are merely
duplicating information they discovered by searching the Internet?
Duplicity and plagarism is rampant in Internet. Few credit from where
they found the sources for the content of their "article". That you can
find many sites proliferating the same information hardly qualifies them
as independent sources. Just look around at your circle of friend,
family, and coworkers. How many of them have bothered migrating or
enabling WM under Windows 7? Because it is something you want then
suddenly it becomes a large populace of other users wanting the same.
K
Ken Blake
It goes back a lot of years, but I used to use Outlook Express and,
although I didn't think it was wonderful, I thought it was OK.
I experimented with Windows Mail just a little. I thought it was also
OK, but I have no opinion on how it compared to Outlook Express.
I *completely* agree with you there. I think it's the worst such
program available. There are many better choices, and some of them are
free.
K
Ken Blake
Two reasons I can think of:
1. It makes the documentation available to everyone, including those
people who pirate the software.
2. They still have to undergo the costs of writing the documentation,
if not the printing of it.
G
Gene E. Bloch
What? Are you trying to say I can't get a car with an 8-track player?
If this is progress, I don't want any part of it!
In truth, I never owned an 8-track player. In fact I don't remember ever
even seeing one in action. No, I'm not too young - I just traveled in
underprivileged circles, I guess...
V
VanguardLH
That was me in a different subthread. While I could test using theRH said:
older version of WLM under Windows XP, I had to Google search to find
out how to find the rules in the newer version of WLM that will install
okay under Vista/7. Google works but sometimes figuring out a good
search string is the problem.
Well, you said "even Outlook Express" so that's the part that I
addressed. You asked and I answered on just ONE point of your OR'ed
question. Others have addressed on using WM under Win7.
Outlook Express came bundled with Internet Explorer. Outlook Express
was NEVER available as a separate download. OE is tied to IE and IE is
tied to the OS regarding its support schedule. IE6 was the last version
of IE that bundled OE with it and why OE6 is the last version you can
get. IE6 is no longer supported on some Windows versions because their
support has ended. IE6 still has support under Windows XP and beyond.
Note that support does NOT equate to development. Development for OE
ended back in 2002.
Similarly, Microsoft bundled Windows Mail in Windows Vista. The support
for WM is tied to that of Vista.
It's been a long time since Microsoft has been touting their Live
services and products. That's what they want you to use should you
choose to use their freebie products. They're moving forward. WM would
be moving backwards to separately provide an e-mail client that was
specifically bundled with an old OS.
It was free. Expect them to do whatever they want regarding support and
availability. Could be one day Microsoft somehow kills off all their
freebie e-mail clients and forces everyone to buy their commercialware
or use a different e-mail client. They aren't forced to provide the
product or support for it outside the scope of the license for the
product, and I'm pretty sure they leave themself an "out" in the
indemnification clauses in the licensing and terms of use.
You'll have to wait until you address that other issue before you can
figure out if the WM workaround to get it working on Windows 7 will work
for you.
You already started another thread on that topic. Don't mix them.
G
Gene E. Bloch
This does provide a source of income for the authors and publishers of
aftermarket how-to books, such as the "...For Dummies" series.
Not all aftermarket books have proven helpful to me, but not a few have
helped me a lot.
K
Ken Blake
Yes, you're saying much the same thing as I did in this thread a few
moments ago.
V
VanguardLH
Building your own isn't that difficult nowadays. You're just slappingKen said:
major components together: mobo, PSU, hard drives, optical drives, slide
in memory, slide in a video card, etc. While it's easy, yes, you can
have someone else do the build (i.e., contract a jobber).
Although I've rarely been able to build my own computer for cheaper than
another pre-built sold in bulk, that wasn't my point. For the same
price (or a tad more), I can put BETTER qualify parts in my computer
plus I know what's in there. When you buy pre-built computers, you
never know what's inside. They sell by specs, not specific components
inside. That's why we cannot buy pre-builts to use in our alpha test
lab because we need to know for sure what is in each host and not just
by its specs. One model might use a mobo with a video card and another
uses a mobo with onboard video because the latter platform has onboard
video that matches the specs for the video card in the prior platform.
But that doesn't help us with imaging when we need to restore hosts but
one model requires a different image than the SAME model with different
hardware inside because of the need for different drivers. For the same
price as a pre-built, I can get better quality components or exceed
their specs (a bit more memory, larger hard disk, bigger monitor, etc).
That way, for the same money, I can have a host with greater longevity
and reliability.
As for getting the pre-built, pre-configured name-branded computers,
still it is possible to uninstall or disable a lot of the junkware that
comes with them. I remember when they were pushing Symantec or McAfee
security software but it was just a trial that expired in maybe 60 days.
So the bloatware they include would expire and users had to make choices
later, like whether to pay to continue the subscription for the current
bloatware or remove it (which often requires manual cleanup of remnants
afterward or use a cleanup tool specific to the anti-virus program) and
get something else and possibly even free. Do they still do that slimy
marketing trick by shoving trialware on their pre-built hosts?
I've gotten stuck working on some pre-builts and marveled (in horror) at
all the background jobs (processes) running for all that bloatware much
of which was of little or no value to the user. In fact, some of that
bloatware was only for use by the vendor's tech support, not for typical
use by the customer.
One advantage of your method of having a local jobber build your host is
that when it breaks you don't have to pay the high postal charge to ship
it to some regional repair center. You just take it back to the local
jobber (or another computer shop if they prior one went out of business
or moved away or retired). When my old LCD monitor got fried, it was
more cost effective to get a newer and bigger monitor than to pay
postage that cost 60% of the new monitor to send back the old one for
repair - assuming it was within warranty.
K
Ken Blake
Valid in *format* perhaps, but not necessarily valid in the sense of
existing. The address I use here ([email protected]) does not exist,
as far as I know.
K
Ken Blake
You say a very common abbreviation. I'll take your its being what you
say it say it is, but it can't be that common if I've never seen or
heard it before.
I hope it's not Valorie, but perhaps that's so.
Ken
K
Ken Blake
You wrote three sentences, quoted above. I'll add the following three
sentences: Ditto. Ditto. Ditto.
G
Gene E. Bloch
RH Breener has annoyed me, I admit, but IMO (s)he is (on occasion) much
more rational and responsive than Valorie.
G
Gene E. Bloch
I have stayed at two different Holiday Inn Expresses as recently as on a
trip in April 2012, yet you've mystified me completely with that remark.
What am I missing? BTW - you're not allowed to say a brain!
K
Ken Blake
Lucky? Lucky to have found someone to do it? I know about half a dozen
local individuals and small companies who do this, and I've barely
looked at all. Give me a day to look around and make inquiries and I
could find dozens more.
Hours and hours? I don't have to spend any time at all doing this.
First, I already know a lot about the choices and what I would want.
Second, if I were someone who didn't know, I could ask the builder for
recommendations.
When I said "I choose all the components" myself, I was describing
what I do, not recommending that everyone else has to do the same
thing. To repeat the point I was making, "You are assuming that there
are only those two choices: buy a pre-built OEM computer or build your
own. That is *not* correct; there is a third choice and it's the one I
prefer and use most of the time. What I almost always do is use a
local builder to build what I want, to my specifications." The last
three words in that quotation described my practice, not what the
third choice has to be.
Nor should they be. And neither did I recommend that they should be.
Again, I was pointing out that *everyone*, despite how little he knows
about computers, has a third choice besides buying a pre-built
computer or building it himself.
And if you are talking about me, my computer knowledge is basically
about software. I have no pretences at being a hardware expert, and
that's one of the reasons I prefer to have someone else do the
building and troubleshooting instead of doing it myself.
C
Char Jackson
Nice.